About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
days ago the obama administration told companies with federal contracts to ignore the law, don't notify the workers of the coming layoffs as part of the fiscal sequestration and it would pick up the lawsuits resulting. what is wrong with that? >> another example of this administration ignoring or skirting the law to help the president's reelection chances. here is where we are. sequestration is going to be the law in january. we haven't seen the leadership from the president on this. he is worried because the companies know they have to lay people off and this they told congress this. omb says you don't have to comply with the law and the worst part is that taxpayers are on the hook for the litigation costs when the workers don't receive the warnings they are supposed to receive. >> chris: governor, why is that right? >> chris, i have a lot of moms and dads that work at places like northrup grumman and lockheed martin. i refuse to believe that members are congress will not come together to find a way to place a greater priority on our nation's defense than we do defending gobss of tax c
, all companies, must tell workers, 60 days in advance, over mass layoffs, but ten days ago, the obama administration told companies with federal contracts to ignore the law, don't notifier workers of these coming layoffs, as part of the fiscal cliff, sequestration, and, it would pick up the legal costs from any losses. senator ayotte, what is wrong with that. >> it is quite shocking, chris, but it is another example of this administration ignoring or skirting the law, to help the president's re-election chances. because, here's where we are. sequestration is going to be the law in january, if we haven't seen the leadership on the president on this, and, he is worried because the companies know they'll have to lay people off and they've told congress this and, omb comes out with an opinion saying you don't have to comply with the law and the forst par worst part is taxpayers are on the hook for the litigation costs when the worker don't receive the warnings they are supposed to. >> chris: governor, why is that right? >> chris i have a lot of moms and dads who work in places like northr
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)